The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 Harinder Singh and others State of Punjab and others CRM-M-64042-2024 Date of decision: 22.01.2025 ....Petitioners V/s ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr.Narinder Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. The petitioners are seeking the quashing of FIR No.83 dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 307, 148, 149 of the IPC, (Section 452 and 120-B of the IPC added later on) and cross FIR registered on 16.07.2022 vide G.D.No.27 dated 16.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 307, 352, 379-B, 427, 324, 148, 149, 341 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the grounds that a settlement dated 19.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) has been reached between the parties involved. It is contented that the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose, and thus, the
Legal Reasoning
At the asking of the Court, Mr.H.S.Deol, Sr.DAG, Punjab accepts notices notice on behalf of the respondent-State. POONAM RATHORE 2025.01.30 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-64042-2024 -2- 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has, on instructions, brought to the notice of this Court that only eight out of the twelve persons named in the FIR are parties to the present petition. While placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Das vs. State of Haryana, decided on 12.11.2024, in CRM-M48043-2023, it has been argued that the instant petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners are seeking partial quashing of the FIR, which is impermissible. 5. In addition, when the counsel for the petitioners was questioned about the feasibility of quashing of an FIR for an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, especially when respondent No.3 had sustained bullet injuries, he pressed into service a decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in Manpreet Singh alias Manna and others vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 30th of January 2023 in CRM-M-37146-2022. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant material placed on record. 7. No doubt, this Court possesses inherent powers under 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. However, these powers must be exercised with caution and circumspection. The jurisprudence on quashing FIRs based on compromise is well settled: (i) in cases predominantly of a private nature, where disputes have been amicably resolved between the parties, the Court can proceed to quash the FIR; POONAM RATHORE 2025.01.30 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-64042-2024 -3- (ii) Conversely, in cases involving grave and heinous offences, such as those under Section 307 of the IPC, quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise is to be generally discouraged. 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 reaffirmed that in cases of non- compoundable offences, the Court can quash the FIR on the basis of compromise if it is convinced that the dispute between the parties is primarily of a civil nature, and the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 9. It would be relevant to reproduce the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Narayan (supra): “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in POONAM RATHORE 2025.01.30 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-64042-2024 -4- that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [(2014) 6 SCC 466: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, POONAM RATHORE 2025.01.30 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh etc.” CRM-M-64042-2024 -5- 10. It would also be relevant to reproduce the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 Live Law (SC) 642: “38. However, before exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court, as observed above, has to be circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like murder, rape,